Bioshock 2

Well, at least for me, the first big disappointment of the gaming year has hit and hit hard. After the wonderful and almost transcendent experience of Mass Effect 2 - a game that opened up so many possibilities for gaming, Bioshock 2 has so little innovation it's actually feels embarrassing to play at times. Not only is the sequel unnecessary it's almost insulting in execution.

For the most part the game treads a fine line between copying the combat of the first game and continually coming up with sequences that remind you of moments that the original did better. With a very poor choice in philosophy for the grand story (are we really expected to believe that treating psychoanalysis as the loss of self is as interested as Objectivism?) the game has none of the emotional impact or thought provoking moments of the first game. I would have loved to have seen the game add in a post-modernist take and use this to play with expectations from the first game, but sadly that's clearly not happening here.

The vulnerability of your character is strange, the logic of the world following the events of the first game is strained and the experience feels tremendously repetitive. The original BioShock had some terrible sequences (such as the tedious trawl through a ramshackle hotel) but don't worry the developers haven't missed the chance to copy it almost room for room.

Although it looks nice I’m at a loss to understand where so much praise is coming from, this is from the moment it begins, an inferior version of the original. Despite what people are saying elsewhere, it really is a knock-off sequel simply aping and not really understanding the impact of the original.

It's worth playing through but so much of the time you will simply be anticipating every moment of the game. There's nothing here that implies developers interested in creating a sequel, taking the opportunity to build on the original.

I would have loved to have seen something special as a sequel to the flawed genius of Bioshock. Instead, to me, it's a game worth playing because you enjoyed the original and can't resist seeing this world again. But as a piece of entertainment in its own right, it doesn't come close.

So I'd like to think it's the result of a missed opportunity rather than a cynical exploitation of a new ip that's been intellectually castrated by people with dollar signs for eyes. Hopefully the producers will realise the team behind the game just don't have the same ability or intelligence to pull off something as good as what came before and will get some of the original staff back to work on the inevitable Bioshock 3.

If not then expect this series to drown pretty quickly.

Update

Finally finished it and it continued to disappoint.

Get the original. Treat it as a great, odd movie and you'll have a blast. This is a dull shadow of that great game.

Bioshock 2 may improve the gameplay a little (dual weapon/powers) but it also introduces some elements that quickly become tedious (gathering...)

There's a single interesting sequence in the game that shows something that doesn't happen in the original (a twisted/different perspective but I don't want to spoil anything) - but that's really the only significant improvement. In the end it's almost disappointing because it shows someone on the team had some ideas that could have made a great sequel. Sadly it's only for a moment.

By the final level the game seemed to have totally lost the plot - spitting out radio messages about people I'd killed minutes before and lacking any real impact.

But the fundamental problem remains the same - the philosophy of the world of Andrew Ryan (Ayn Rand) was so strange, so unexpected, that it significantly altered what a game could be. This game absolutely fails to do that.

Given the best sequence is about a different perspective I still feel there could have been something really interesting done around the writings of Derrida or Foucalt. Sadly that's all been thrown away in favour of a basic, insulting and misguiding mishmash of Marx and Freud.

In fact, I'm hard pressed to even describe it that way. It's more like what McCarthy would think Communism was if you added in a confused hillbilly paranoia of psychology.

A waste, from start to finish.

The only thing good that could come out of it would be if someone took the original and added the gameplay improves from the sequel, and maybe the events of this game as a 1-2 hour extra level half way through.

But I'll say it again - Bioshock 1 is a masterpiece of story telling, get that and love it and try to forget this ever happened.

Do dvdrips dream of digital profit?

I’ve had a few thoughts about piracy and digital products running through my head over the last few years. I thought it’d be interesting to get it down on paper so I’ll probably print this out later… seriously though I figured it might an interesting read. If this all seems old hat to those reading it, well I hope you bear with it.

As someone interested in the online world I’m curious about why there has been a continual growth of unlicensed digital distribution and why this was. I could simply dismiss it as greed or that people simply steal because they can, but I think something far more fundamental is going on. I’d like to consider the possibility that at its very heart modern capitalism always contained and encouraged everything that has made piracy so popular. This isn’t an aberration, but the expression of the desires instilled by our advertising and entertainment industry unshackled from the bonds that bound excess in the past.

Challenging piracy

Right now all attempts to deal with piracy are failing absolutely. Although some individuals have been ruined and services closed there has been no slowing in the growth of the way digital products are distributed outside of the current legal framework. Closing down services that can be instantly replaced has been ineffective. Attempting to sue individuals when millions more are doing the same thing has the ring of a mad Canute screaming on the oncoming future.

So far alternative methods to deal with the problems have been filled with the tone of panic and fury. By understanding why digital distribution is so linked to the desires inevitably created by the world that creates it I’d hope to suggest some thoughts on not why this has happened but also why there are possible alternatives that could both maintain the money necessary for the industry without risking the affection and dedication of those fans currently in love with their products.

But people have always wanted things, more things than they can afford, they’ve always been told they want more things than they can afford. That’s the bedrock our whole economic crisis has been founded on after all. So what’s unique about digital products?

Unending supply

At its heart the traditional business model provides a product that is limited. Balancing the amount produced against the demand for the product allows for profit to be made.

By increasing this demand, whether through advertising or distribution and sales the amount of profit generated is increased. It’s no surprise that every movie, no matter how tiresome or poorly made is sold as the next ‘must see’ movie. We live in a world where we are constantly bombarded with the desire to have the latest, newest, greatest product quite apart from any real value or innovation the product itself may contain. Advertising plays on the desires we have not on the reality of the item being sold.

Yet suddenly we are living in a world where the product itself is in the act of creation, totally divorced from any control of production. The creation of an item still requires the labour behind the work. This labour still has the same value it ever had but we now live in an age where any digital product, once created is effectively infinitely available. Without any further requirement (or with a limited amount of labour) a product becomes endless and always available. Once a film is released or the ink dries on a comic book it can be immediately and infinitely reproduced. The original producer may try to control its reproduction legally, but we have to accept that this is an attempt to control a product. At its heart a digital product is infinitely available.

Universally provided

Old models of distribution have often been based on physical production. The reason why films came out in one country first was bound up in more than just advertising campaigns or creating a desire for people to watch a product. They are also about the physical effort required to make a comic book and ship it across the world, to produce a can of film and get it to the Wednesday screening in Dewsbury.

Digital products have entirely changed this for the industry. Creating the desire to watch a movie already released in the US but not coming out in the UK for six months doesn’t build anticipation any more. Precious being available in only 50 screens doesn’t make it popular for its release size – it just means more people are going to download it. It’s available and it’s available for free, in a digital world if you want to release something months later all you’re doing is telling your most loyal fans that they have the right to want to own something, but you don’t think they deserve the right to have it yet.

From fansubs of anime to zero-day releases piracy sates the want that geographic boundaries based on old-fashioned business plans create. By conforming to this model all studios are doing to helping to promote piracy so they can prop up shite they know no one would go to see if it was released at the same time as The Hurt Locker, or god help us, Avatar.

An infinite scale

Within this it’s important to see that not only is the business model based on a limited supply but also on a limited demand. Ingrained within the way products are sold is that there is a limited window of saleability and only a limited number of people willing to buy the product. If we start to perceive that a product is infinitely available, both in numbers and time, then we must also conclude there is an infinite number of people who will be willing to own, buy, steal or posses the product.

By moving away from physical products and expensive campaigns it’s possible to start looking at a customer base that never ends, that some old archived footage will always appeal to someone. It might be time to stop thinking about what you can get someone to pay 10 dollars or 1000 rupees for in 2010 and think about what someone will pay 10 cents for in 3010.

So, we’ve got a product that is available everywhere, that never degrades or gets dusty and that never runs out. What does that mean when we smash it into the way the media industries currently work?

The exploitation of desire

It should be evident to many that our current system of production believes in quantity over quality. The idea of television and film and novels is to fulfil the needs of many individual tastes rather than create fewer products that speak universally. When taken in isolation, within a particular geographic location, with a limited access to cable or satellite TV, combined with a reluctance to buy online, then we could almost imagine ourselves to still have the same situation – a large but not unbearable amount of choice. We could still be targeted by particular adverts or promotions, still see a billboard for the latest teen romance, vampire love-in, grisly gory-porno, and decide to buy the product. At heart we are always been told that the new is the latest and the greatest within the genre we are identified with or drawn to.

But the underlying message here isn’t responsibility, it isn’t to buy what you can afford or save up for the latest product. The message is that this product, this next item can make you smile, this box set can make the mindless tedium of your job a little more bearable. There’s only ever been so much spare cash floating around, and media industries are about getting you to spend it on them not giving you advice about how to repay your credit card.

But what is the nature of the digital world for those that increasingly embrace it? People can now easily access any digital product for free. They can see an advert or a new poster or seeing a blog post on favourite horror movies and immediately be able to download it. With nothing more than google they can find everything they’ve read they should listen to. We live in a world were advertising isn’t based on showing the effort or the time spent to create a TV show, but is based on simply making you want it. By creating a world where products are pushed to increase demand the film studios and record companies gave birth to the idea of sharing products – they’ve always wanted dedication and desire, well now they’ve got it, they created the desire and the internet has simply gone on to find a way to fulfil it.

It’s free!

To combat piracy and still profit from desire to access products that consumers are sold there has been an explosion in services that try to combat the allure of piracy by offering products for free. These are increasingly popular, how many house parties or Christmas piss ups were fueled by a Spotify playlist in 2009? But there is an inherent flaw here. If everything is available, if do what thou wilt is the law of the land, then advertising loses its value. If compelling people to want your product will only mean the product will be distributed and downloaded for free then eventually the Ouroboros at the center of the industry will consume itself. As advertising revenues decrease then so does the viability of the product. Showing Lost or South Park for free, if you’re in the right country, will keep things going a little longer, but it’s not a solution. There needs to be a foundation that brings in some money, that’s simple logic, if you don’t make enough to continue then you don’t continue, or you end up having to undercut the costs of the product to such a degree you’re left with nothing.

One example of free legal supply (in the sense of there being no direct payment being made when the item is obtained) that is available to huge numbers of people is the local library. Here a person has most products available and for free. But we can easily see how even this fails to address the issues of digital piracy. The available product is physically limited, rather than being infinitely available. It’s bound by the release schedule of a particular country, so it fails to be universally provided. Although libraries currently show an example of how we, within modern society, have tempered the idea that knowledge or entertainment should be restricted by personal wealth – they continue to be bound by the old methods of distribution and control. They are both a boon to those willing to work within the current ethical framework and an example of how the limited methods of challenging financial control of ownership is inadequate and out of place in the world of digital products.

Services like Netflix seem to suggest an alternative, but again it’s about too much control, about releases products when a studio wants based on a grand marketing plan that’s already souring their own customer base against them. Why settle on one method of distribution? What could be ahead in the future?

Changes

I think the previous examples point towards some of the changes that could resolve the current issues around piracy and digital distribution. Whilst some people will be imprisoned and some lives ruined by the clash of the old systems with the new reality, in the end everyday someone new tries to download a product and everyday a pirate doesn’t stop downloading. Industries will have to take a step to change.
Of course there may be some protection from gimmicks; 3D films are currently seen as the saviour of the industry, with many delegates at the recent CES show desperately pointing towards expensive new televisions with panic and fear in their polarized, goggle wearing eyes. But gimmicks are just temporary measures that don’t address any fundamental issue we’ve discussed here. Holding back colour from television didn’t ultimately hold back the fundamental changes TV provided and nor did Cinemascope or avoiding widescreen video releases for so long. No, if an industry is to adapt to a changing situation it must address what has caused the change, not attempt to side step the issue.

So the reality we live with is this. Old business models based on a the idea of a product have a short window of popularity and high value, sold on its immediate appeal, with restricted distribution that moves onto the next new product as quickly as possible. In reality though we have a product with a much longer appeal, indeed possibly infinite, with a need for immediate world wide access to what they wish to watch. Nothing so far really appeals to this market because attempts to appeal are still based on old assumptions – that something should cost a certain amount because a return has to be seen within a select window of return.

Instead of seeing the product as having a limited space on the shelves, how about focusing on a two-tier strategy that keeps the door open for old fashion physical products and takes advantage of the digital reality. Enter into a limited agreement with torrent sites and download lockers to receive a small amount of income for free downloads. The idea of a download license fee has been suggested but often rejected, legalising downloads just gets it in by the back door. Still keep those metal box sets and glossy collector’s edition art books to put on the shelves. But behind this sell everything else for next to nothing, using the fans to help distribute the product. No one goes to jail, one ends up hating what they love and companies keep getting what they lust for, some money rolling in. And most importantly, if someone is downloading for free and you gave them enough chances to pay for it cheaply and easily then, well, then fuck it – they never wanted your product in the first place and they weren’t ever going to pay for it.

Some changes would be inevitable. If you run a shitty, supermarket multiplex whose only interest in film is how many salt and butter draped corns of cardboard John and Mrs Doe shove down their gullet then you’ll be in trouble, because they may as well stay at home and download the movie. But you offer a unique experience that people make part of a night out and I think you’d still have people queuing up for opening night. You worried about selling your products from your dusty shelves then stick in an unlimited and superfast download link, charge people a dollar to download whatever they want to their Ipad using their own accounts.

But don’t think of this as evolution, this isn’t a random change; this is and always was inevitable. Piracy isn’t an invaded from the outside come to attack the media industries; it’s the child they birthed.

Oh and just to make the point, here’s a link to download Night of the Hunter, one of my favourite film noirs. It’s effectively free if you don’t mind waiting or playing with your IP address to get it from Rapidshare. Of course you could just pay the nominal sum to download it from Rapidshare without waiting, but because of the business model being used that money won’t go back to anyone who holds the rights to the movie. I ain’t going to jail for posting the link, I’m not going to get a warning letter or have my internet cut off.

This could change of course, but not by making it more illegal, we've seen how that has failed. But WB could buy rapidshare in a second, and they could ask enter in an agreement where they asked for 10 cents for every movie they mark as their own to be paid to them. They’d have a slow steady stream of income for a product no one living created, worked on, or paid for. But they won’t, they’d rather try to imprison to people sharing it and try to close down the service.

Sometimes it might be best to look at the long game, here’s the link –